The Short Pro-Growth Defense of Capitalism Romney Did Not Deliver in the Debate

During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney interjected at the end of an exchange with President Obama that “government doesn’t create jobs.” He said it, I think, at least twice. Liberals on Twitter made fun of it, but Romney was right. It was one of many good moments for him that venue — but the format, and certainly the moderator, did not allow for follow-up.

If he had the time, Romney should have really hammered home the point that government (at best) is only a minor impediment to economic growth. Mostly, it’s an enormous hinderance. Obama’s idea that his picking of winners and losers (but mostly losers) is the engine of economic growth and widely shared prosperity is bunk — which America has had the misfortune to experience over the last four years. That difference in economic philosophy is key to this election — and any chance we have to get out of the Obama malaise.

The easiest job in the world is the Monday Morning Quarterback … but Romney should have laid out, specifically, what the Obama administration actively does to suppress job growth. For starters: Punitive corporate tax rates, an out-of-control and arbitrary regulatory state, and (of course) Obamacare’s still uncertain tax and regulatory burden.

My dream rewind moment in the debate, out of Romney’s mouth — and it could have been uttered in a tidy two minutes at several points in the debate:

President Obama is blissfully ignorant of the effect he’s policies have on economic growth in this country, because he has never worked in the private sector where entrepreneurs have their dreams and their financial futures on the line every single day.

This president has stated his frustration that businesses won’t invest their capital to get the economy moving again, oblivious to the economic uncertainty his policies have caused. But business owners are acting sensibly by not risking the future of their livelihoods on a mere promise by this president that their success won’t be punished by higher taxes and more regulations. They’ve paid attention for the last four years, and know that the opposite is true.

Obama, in his core, thinks government is an unappreciated silent partner that has built those businesses, so government has claim to run them. But the truth is that government, under Obama, usurps an unearned share. Those entrepreneurs, and all of their employees, gave at the office. And they gave plenty — more than Obama’s pessimistic, anti-capitalism, zero-sum mindset can hope to comprehend.

As president, I will do all I can to establish an environment of economic certainty that encourages the risking of capital and the investment of intellectual ingenuity. Entrepreneurs and those who work with them to achieve their dreams will know that I will remove barriers that stand in the way of the path to success. I will lower tax rates — at the corporate and personal levels — to encourage more investment in human capital. In short, I will reward success, not punish it. That’s a formula generations have called fostering the American Dream, and it’s worked every time it’s tried.

Would have been nice to hear Tuesday night. Alas, who doesn’t want a chance to re-speak what they have spoken, especially in a debate of that importance. I believe Romney — the fixer, the man who has advanced the capitalist dreams of many — believes what I wrote above. It would be good to hear it. And it would be better for all Americans if that vision was implemented by the president who is elected on November 6.

Jim is the the director of communications at The Heartland Institute. Prior to joining Heartland, he was an ink-stained newspaperman for 16 years with many stops in "old media."
Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.

Romney needs to be more specific when he talks about President Obama’s energy policies. President Obama says he supports all energy options–oil, natural gas, “clean coal”, and all forms of renewable energy. “Clean coal” is a code word for burning coal with carbon dioxide capture and storage that makes an uneconomical energy source. This will end the use of coal. EPA has proposed rules that can shut down all coal plants and restrict use of oil and natural gas.
President Obama is increasing the regulatory burden on developing oil and natural gas. I suspect during the debate October 22, President Obama will announce the day after the election The Department of Interior will sell leases for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Most of the Reserve has drilling off limits for environmental reasons. The area leases will be made available are the furthest from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline which may make bringing oil to market uneconomical. No leases may be sold.
President Obama’s plan for increasing energy supply is only with renewable energy sources–solar, wind, battery-powered cars, ethanol from corn, and other biofuels. All of these programs have resulted in losses exceeding one hundred billion dollars and counting. Their environmental benefits are suspect and they only produce unreliable, impractical, and uneconomic energy sources.
Mitt Romney needs to boldly identify these losses and exclaim our economy will never recover without a sensible energy policy that exploits our abundant, cheap fossil fuel energy sources.
James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering

http://www.heartland.org/ The Heartland Institute

Excellent point about clean coal, Jim. If Romney is our next president, it will be incumbent upon the public to push him to roll back the regulations that are crippling our coal plants — with little environmental gain … for starters.